Mark Rapaport MD
President Elect 2025-2026 American Psychiatric Association

When Leadership Extends Beyond the Institution: Ethical Responsibility at the National Level

​

Throughout the events described on this site, the author had limited but meaningful interactions with Mark Rapaport, MD, who at the time served as Chair of Psychiatry at the University of Utah and is now President-Elect of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Dr. Rapaport is widely recognized in academic psychiatry for his leadership and contributions to the field. The author approaches this discussion with the assumption that Dr. Rapaport is a principled and well-intentioned physician committed to the advancement of psychiatric care.

 

According to the author’s account, Dr. Rapaport was in a senior leadership role during a period in which multiple concerns were raised within the institution, including a January 2021 “Me Too” communication in which the author described experiences of harm. The author further reports that Dr. Rapaport reached out to her in the winter of 2021, after she began speaking more openly about her experiences. These interactions were experienced as acknowledgment of her concerns within a broader institutional context.

 

The author also reports that Dr. Rapaport was made aware of allegations regarding a June 2020 sexual assault involving Stamatios Dentino, MD, prior to Dr. Dentino’s later appointment as Medical Director of Huntsman Mental Health Institute on July 1, 2024. The author indicates that, at the time of that appointment, investigations related to these concerns were ongoing. From her perspective, this raised significant ethical questions regarding leadership oversight, particularly in relation to how institutions assess risk when appointing individuals to positions of authority during periods of active or unresolved investigation.

 

In addition, the author describes a prolonged investigative process in which, according to her understanding, statements from involved faculty were delayed over an extended period of time. She experienced these delays as contributing to a lack of clarity and resolution, and as potentially limiting the ability of investigative bodies to fully assess and respond to emerging concerns. Within her account, these delays are viewed in the broader context of escalating risk, including the events associated with Parth Gandhi, PhD, which involved alleged sexual misconduct and ultimately a tragic murder-suicide in May 2023.

 

The author does not assert that any individual outcome can be attributed to a single decision or action. Rather, she raises ethical questions about how timeliness, transparency, and accountability function within institutional systems, and how delays or inaction—regardless of intent—may affect both investigative processes and community safety.

 

These considerations are particularly relevant in the context of leadership. As Chair of Psychiatry, Dr. Rapaport held responsibility for oversight of faculty and training environments. As President-Elect of the American Psychiatric Association, he now occupies a role that extends beyond a single institution, carrying influence over professional standards, ethical expectations, and the broader culture of psychiatry.

 

This raises an important ethical question: how should leaders respond when concerns are raised that may involve risk to patients, trainees, or the community? Ethical frameworks in psychiatry emphasize the duty to protect, the obligation to report potential harm, and the importance of maintaining public trust through transparency and accountability.

 

The author’s perspective is that these responsibilities take on added significance when viewed through the lens of institutional influence. Leadership is not only defined by individual character, but by the systems and standards that leaders uphold and enforce.

 

In this context, the author offers this discussion as a call to reflection and action. As President-Elect of the APA, Dr. Rapaport is in a position to help shape national conversations around reporting, accountability, and protection of vulnerable individuals within psychiatric and related fields. This includes ensuring that systems are responsive to allegations of harm, that investigations proceed without undue delay, and that individuals in positions of authority are held to standards that prioritize safety and ethical integrity.

 

The author reiterates that she views Dr. Rapaport as a respected figure in psychiatry and assumes good faith in his intentions. His inclusion in this narrative reflects his leadership role during the period in question and his current position within the field.

 

The broader ethical question remains:

 

How can institutions—and those who lead them—ensure that concerns are not only heard, but acted upon in a timely and effective manner?

 

And how can the profession continue to evolve in ways that protect both patients and those who come forward to report harm?

 

These questions are offered not as conclusions, but as an invitation to continued ethical engagement at both the institutional and national level.